Do you play a musical instrument?

I watch this thread, somewhat amazed at the developments.

What is being driven at here?

Are musicians some kind of different specie?

Are non-players totally divided from players, or composers.

No!

First and foremost we are all humans - sharing the same natural doom, and who may share similar enthusiasms and disappointments.

Would i believe Elgar on the subject of Brahms [that old bore when when he gets executed, scores for a triangle and cymble?], or my own ears, which adore the music of Elgar AND Brahms!

One does not need to have played either Brahms or Elgar to realise that they both gave us great music.

One does not need to have played the Saint John Passion on the bass to know that this is one of the peaks of human musical endeavour.

One only needs a good ear, and an open mind.

Of course there is popular music that is ephemeral, and of of no long term significance, but if it yields pleasure to one generation alone,, or perhaps for fifty years, then the music can still be seen as grand. 

If one plays music very regularly, then no more intense listen can occur than during performance, but that does not make that particular listening more pleasurable than, or in any way superior to, listening as a member of the audience or from a gramophone record.

Just a few thoughts.

ATB from George

OK Char I get it, we need to be freed completely from the bonds of media and commercialization, allowed to skip unfettered by the influences of the modern world or earlier works that George speaks of and as I have pointed out earlier give the child an instrument and tell them to play whatever they want.

But it will sound crap. I assure you.

Music is not commercialism

The music that gas been co-opted to commercialism is probably the least likely to survive the next fifty years ...

ATB from George

I agree George, the majority of the "manufactured" stuff of today will be forgotten before then, but I am still hopeful that there are a number of cultured young individuals with a penchant for jazz/blues and classical music that realise that Jedward are a sub(less than zero) talent.

Regards Jim

You seem to be separating artistic activity from the market place and commodities

And what, precisely, is wrong with that? If you want to get all hung up on capitalism, that's your neurosis. The irony, from this point of view, is that we are all, here, right now, engaged in a so called 'free' discussion in and about a system governed by rules and owned by  a company which exists to make a profit. (Cue Matrix theme). But, is it not remotely possible that the profit motive can sit comfortably alongside the altruistic motive of bringing the best quality sound reproduction to the people? And as such we can talk about these forces in isolation or together: we have the freedom to choose. My vicar helps me to understand my Faith and save my soul, but he needs money to exist in a capitalist economy. I am aware that he is paid a salary (and a lowly one at that) but that fact does not unduly hinder my relationship with him or the Lord, or stop him from doing a brilliant job. Neither does it stop him appreciating live music which has been painstakingly written and rehearsed to produce the very best sound in his church.

Precisely Loki, Is it not possible for an artist to be creating Works,whereby the only target audience is ones own heart.

And if by chance someone else likes it, Wahey! Two for the price of one.

For Jimmy:

'The nightingale's song is delightful because the nightingale herself gives it forth' (J.P.Sousa)

And Char, it appears to be you (with regard to what was postulated earlier about Zappa) who feels compelled to apply messiah status upon them.

Whereas I am well aware that the their sh#t stinks the same as mine or anyone else,s (pardon the coarseness).

Regards Jim

Oh, I think you are wrong here George.

I'm sure that Mozart, Handel, Haydon and many, many others were quite happy to be funded by a patron. Very much a commercial venture in their own era.

But it survives none-the-less.

very naive

Well, if I was a sensitive type I'd say that's not very nice. At least we aren't slaves to Marxist readings of the world. very happy to remain 'naive' if this is your definition of 'knowing'.  Innocence is bliss.

old fashioned conception

Nothing wrong with the old. I believe it to be wrong to kill people. Does that make me old fashioned? Stringed and wind instruments; the human vocal chords; all pretty old fashioned ideas to produce music. Seems okay to me.

seem to imply

You may infer what you like but I believe the implication was not intentional. 

you believe that reciting music is a form of worship

Best not to generalise from the particular. a) we haven't mentioned anything being done from memory b) we're not talking about talking and c) clearly religious music is not the only form.

Now, off to listen to some music, perchance of the spheres 

I admit no such thing, Char, Why can't Art be linked to spirituality? I am sure that for some that it most certainly does.  There is absolutely no reason why a landscape artist for example might want to keep a piece of his own work, simply because it pleases him, regardless of its potential value.

Mmmmmm, I have grown weary of your musings (in a Quentin crisp type voice).

Ta ta for now. Jim.

And if someone claims to have tingling feelings of ecstasy from what appears to be a divine force whilst strumming or throwing paint, who are we to argue otherwise.

Indeed, our Jimmy. Taste is an individual thing. We all get our  kicks in different ways.

There is nothing wrong with admiring the beautiful, but it does not necessarily lead to spiritual salvation.

You're the only one arguing for and against that point Char. I'm interested to see which of you wins. Have you changed your brew? I'd come off the blended leaves and get back on the single estate, hand-picked variety if I were you.

Artisanal tea for artisanal musos. Now that would be inspiring.

Dear Don,

Of these three, the situation was different in each case.

Mozart was initially a child prodigy and certainly was promoted by his father. I think his subsequent drive into music was anything but an effort to gain fortune, and indeed Mozart was never remotely wealthy. Considering how popular his music was in his day, I am sure that if he had had Handel's head for business, he could have been as wealthy as Paul McCartney in his time relatively.

Haydn was a boy chorister and again his seamless move into composing was down to gaining a job for a Princely Patron on a salary that was the same the Princely footmen received! Only in his last years as an extremely old man [in terms of his times] did he feel free to go freelance as it were, and though he was acute at dealing with publishers, who themselves were obviously of a capitalist mentality, Haydn simply wanted to secure a comfortable home to live in.

Handel was an out and out man of the theatre, impresario, and had the ability to earn great sums from some of his ventures. He was also happy to receive Royal Patronage and commissions! Yes, Handel was the one good example [of the three you mention] that shows that great music can emerge from a desire to earn money from writing it. But Handel was an unusual man for his time. I don't think that because Handel was cute at earning money with his talents, that makes music in general inherently commercial. There is some music that is purely commercial, and quite of lot of this money-making music really is not first rate, even though Handel's was.

I think what your chosen examples show is that music is actually not commercialism but can be commercialised without ruin of its artistic significance.

I hope you forgive that answer, even if we are probably not agreeing.

ATB from George

I never cease to be amazed by the eclectic knowledge on this forum. Brilliant stuff George. There has been a tendency on this thread only to refer to 'commercialism' in the pejorative. But, of course, that is to deny the fact that maximising profits is not necessarily at the expense of quality. I'm quite happy for musicians and hifi manufacturers to make a handsome profit, not because I'm weak-minded or foolish with my money, but simply because if I like what they do, then I want to continue to be able to purchase their goods, and I won't be able to do that if they go bust. The balance of commercial power works both ways, because if they charge too much or too little they will price themselves out of the market and cease to be financially viable. I feel a Foucauldian rant about the distribution of power coming on! 

Dear Char, I prefer to drink tea. As far as I am concerned this thread in this forum transcends national boundaries and prejudices of all kind. I'm not asking to buy love, (sordid thought) but I do believe that we should facilitate it. The fact is that I think we can all agree with your plea to 'openly acknowledge the fact that music is a business, and not the quest for the Holy Grail'. You seem to be picking a fight with yourself. And, you seem curiously hung up about your nation other nations see us as pretentious and arrogant, and yet we do not know, nor do we need to know what your nationhood is. All we are investigating is whether there is a link between musicianship and high quality sound reproduction.Relax. We just might be on the same side. Remember Omaha? My grandfather did. Neither he nor I smoke. But I thank you for the offer, and I and he remain eternally grateful for the multination cooperation in the day of days.

No wonder other nations see us as pretentious and arrogant.... I'm glad to be English, notwithstanding our arrogant and pretentious attitude towards music. 

Glad to be caught between extremes Char? Really?  Just your unilateral point of view. 

Oh, dear! I knew I shouldn't be wasting my time and travel around the globe trying  to broaden my horizons. I speak four languages when all I needed was a basic command of english. Stupid me!

Well done you, Char. Now, can you hear that...? It's the wind blowing!

Short, sharp and to the point. Excellent. Contingent upon what, exactly?

Yes exactly, Char you seem to either over simplify the question or bring the thread into a cacophony of juxtaposed ideologies and syntactic ambiguity.

Regards Jim.

Not to mention radical decentralisation, narrative fragmentation, multiple enunciative positions, neologisms, a structure based on an unresolved binary dialectic, interdiscursive mixing and semantic ambiguity, all common characteristics of this type of discourse.

Its not big and its certainly not clever.

Hear, hear, Jan.